RE: Last Call comments on "Concepts and Abstract Syntax"

Hi Jeremy,

I think that you are telling me that section 7 "Fragment Identifiers" is
deemed informative and that you have removed all doubt by not using the
'informative' designation from all section headings and relying on the
sentence, "Within this document, normative sections are explicitly labelled
as such. Explicit notes are informative." from the introduction to establish
a non-normative/informative default.

I that is what you are telling me I am happy that that resolves the comment
I made.

Thanks,

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 09 April 2003 08:07
> To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org; skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: Last Call comments on "Concepts and Abstract Syntax"
> 
> 
> 
> Stuart,
> 
> SubTopic: Informative/Normative
> 
> I made a small mistake ... :(
> 
> In:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMa
> r/0329.html
> [[
> Stuart:
> > 9) Section 7 Fragment Identifiers.
> > 
> > This section (and many others) is not explicitly labelled as normative
or
> > informative (both deginations are used elsewhere). I assume this is an
> > informative section, but I think it would be helpful to be explicit in
this
> > case rather than leave any doubt.
> Jeremy:
> I believe we intended it as informative.
> Accepted.
> ]]
> 
> We have deleted the last occurrance of the word "informative" in a section

> heading with the resolution of the social meaning issue. The other
occurrence 
> of the word informative is in section 1
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#section-Introduction

The sentence being:
[[
Within this document, normative sections are explicitly labelled as such. 
Explicit notes are informative.
]]

I hope that that sentence adequately addresses this concern, and no change
is 
necessary.
Please reply if this is OK.

Jeremy

Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 04:28:30 UTC